




4 O 















^^ '<.-.;• G^ '^o 




* ^^ 





^^- 




4 O 
■a? ^<^ 











- cT* "j^^^. '^ v"^ /^ 








-^^0^ 


















* <i- 



WW* ^^^^ v^ •-!^P^,*,^^ -^^ \^A^/ >= ^^, 



-^^0^ 





< o 




.' .^^% 














V 



.v^v -^ ^-^^w* ^j^^'^'V ^^K*" '^^^% ^'^^^^/ ^^ 








^ 






.^^^ 




tf^^t^iv' 



SPEECH 



OF 



. Tiurjj. 



^R H. ST 



OF GEORGIA, 



ON THE 



ADMISSION OF MINNESOTA AND ALIEN SUFFEAGE; 



DELIVERED 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPR ESENT ATI VES, M A Y 1 1 , 1858 



»v. 



cor. 



ii^l^iiv- 




WASHT37GTON: 

PRINTED AT THF CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE 
1858. 



Wlo 



SPEECH. 



The House having under consideration the bill for tlie 
admission of the State of Minnesota into the Union — 
Mr. STEPHENS said: 

Mr. Speaker: My time will not allow me to 
answer all the objections that have been made to 
the admission of Minnesota. I do not think it 
necessary, however, to consume time, or to ex- 
haust my feeble strength in answering all the ob- 
jections that have been raised. Many of them are 
of small import, while some of them are grave, 
important, and go to the \ery foundation princi- 
ples of our Government. Tliis latter class of ob- 
jections are not new; they are not novel; they in- 
volve principles coeval with our institutions. In 
reply to theim, I must be brief in the forty min- 
iates allotted to me. They involve two inquiries. 
The first question in reference to them is, whether 
they be well taken in fad; and the second is, 
whether, if well founded, they amount, in them- 
selves, to a good and valid ground for the rejec- 
tion of a State. 

The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Garvett] 
objects because of the State boundaries violating 
the stipulation between Virginia and the United 
States in the cession of the Northwest Territory. 
In point ©f fact, I do not consider that objection 
well taken; but if it were good, it ought to have 
been taken when the enabling act was jiassed last 
Congress, fixing the boundaries of Minnesota. 
That portion of the old Northwestern Territory 
now included in the State of Minnesota was in- 
cluded then, and the objection should have been 
taken then, if at all. There is, however, but a 
small portion of the old cession of Virginia in- 
cluded in this State. Twenty-odd thousand square 
miles of that cession, it is true, have been added to 
the ninety-odd thousand square miles constituting 
the main body of Minnesota. This was for con- 
venience. Only a small portion, therefore, of the 
original Virginia cession has been taken off and 
added to the large extent of country that makes 
the State of Minnesota, for the public convenience. 
There has been no injury resuking anywhere, and 
no breach of faith, in my judgment. 

It was stated, also, that the number of delegates 



who formed the State constitution was larger than 
that ordered in the enabling act. That objection 
has been well answered by the gentleman's col- 
league, [Mr. Jenkins.] The act of Congress pro- 
vided that as many delegates should be chosen as 
there were representatives in the Territorial Le- 
gislature. Well, sir, the people of Minnesota con- 
strued that to embrace their Senators or Council- 
men as well as Representatives in the lower House. 
The bill admitted of a doubt. I do not couceive 
that that objection has much force in it. 

But I must pass on to notice the other objections 
of a graver character. It was stated by the gen- 
tleman from Ohio, [Mr. Sherman,] who opened 
this debate, and has been repeated by several other 
gentlemen, that the constitution of Minnesota is 
violative of the Constitution of the United States 
— in this, that it permits aliens to vote, or other 
than citizens of the United States to vote, in State 
elections. 

Mr. Speaker, before arguing the point whether 
this clause of the constitution of Minnesota doe.s 
or does not violate the Constitution of the United 
States, let me ask right here this question: sup- 
pose it be true that that feature of their constitu- 
tion does violate the Constitution of the United 
States, or is inconsistent with it: is that a good 
ground for her rejection .' I put it strongly and 
broadly in the fore front of the argument — sup- 
pose that be conceded: is it a legitimate ground 
of objection to the admission of a State that a pro- 
vision of its constitution is inconsistent with the 
Constitution of the United States.' I say, sir, not. 
I say it as a State-rights man, advocating the prin- 
ciples of the State-rights school. We can only 
look into the constitution of a new State applying 
for admission, to see that it is republican inform, 
and that it legally and fairly expresses the will of 
the people. If there be conflicts, the Constitution 
of the United States points out how those conflicts 
are to be settled. After coming into the Union, 
such clause, if it be in, will of course have to yield 
to the supreme law of the land. Sir, the case of 
Minnesota, if this be true of her constitution , will 
not be a singular one. 



TheconstitutionofllliNois declares that no man 
shall be eligible to a Federal office wlio has been 
elected to and has accepted a judgeship in that 
State within two years after the expiration of the 
term for which he accepted it. A Senator from 
that State, now holding a se^t in the other wing of 
the Capitol, [IMr. Trumbull,] was elected to that 
body during the term of a judgeship of a State 
court, which he had been elected to and had ac- 
cepted. In the Senate of the United States, the 
question was raised as to his eligibility, and as 
to whether the constitution of Illinois could, 
under the Constitution of the United States, 
impose such a qualification; in other words, 
whether the qualifications for Senators set forth 
in the Constitution of the United States were not 
absolute and binding, and did not supersede the 
provision of the constitution of Illinois. The 
Senate so determined ; and that Senator now holds 
his seat in the face, in the teeth, and against that 
constitutional provision of his own State. 

Whether that decision of the United States 
Senate was right or wrong, I will not now stop to 
inquire, or to express an opinion. 

1 cannot take up my time in citing other analo- 
gous cases. Many instances might be adduced 
from decisions of the courts. It is enough for me 
to affirm that the Constitution of the United States 
declares that " this Constitution, and the laws of 
the United States which shall be made in pur- 
suance there()f, and all treaties made, or which 
shall be made, under the authority of the United 
States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and 
the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, 
anything in the constitution or laws of any State 
to the contrary notwithstanding." I say, there- 
fore, in answer to all liiat has been said in refer- 
ence to theconstitution of Minnesota being in vio- 
lation of the Constitution of the United States, that 
even conceding the point for argument's sake, 
(which I do not concede in fact,) this would not be a 
just and valid ground on which to reject her admis- 
sion. It is a question which can be properly de- 
cided when it arises, if ever, by the proper judi- 
cial tribunal before which it may arise. We, on 
the question of admission, can only look into a 
constitution to see that it is republican in form. 

Mr. TRIPPE. I desire to ask my colleague 
whether he concurs in the Green amendment to 
the Kansas bill, which asserts the right of Con- 
gress to inquire into the constitution of any State 
applying for admission into the Union, in order to 
see whether it is consistent with the Constitution 
of the United States. > 

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. My time is 
short, and I want to argue other questions; but I 
will say to my colleague that there was nothing 
in the original Green amendment which did not 
meet my cordial and hearty approval. There 
was nothing in it which inquired into a constitu- 
tion. It was altogether negative in its character. 

Mr. TRIPPE. If my colleague will allow me, 
I think that right was directly asserted in the 
Green amendment. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair desires to sug- 
gest that the constitution of Kansas is not before 
the House. 



^Mr. TRIPPE. The same principle iarolved 
in the amendment to the Kansas bill, to which I 
have referred, is contained in this bill. 

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I cannot dis- 
cuss thatquestion now. There were words added . 
to the original Green amendment that 1 considered 
liable to objection; but, being negative, were not 
insuperable with me. Now, Mr. Speaker, I lay 
down this proposition, that there is nothing, in 
my judgment, in the constitution of Minnesota, 
inconsistent with the Constitution of the United 
States. 

The gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. Sherman,] who 
led off in this debate, argued that there was no 
clause in the constitution of Minnesota by which 
the present elected members of the Legislature 
could be prevented from holding for life. Well, 
sir, suppose the gentleman was correct — but I do 
not concede the fact: the constitution would not 
therefore be anti-republican. I would not vote 
for such a constitution if I were there. But, sir, 
what constitutes a republican form of govern- 
ment.' It is, as I understand it, a division of the 
three great branches of government — the execu- 
tive, the judicial, and the law-making powers. 
That division is certainly in this constitution. 
Several of the States have made the judiciary 
elective, or holding office for life. Does that make 
their constitutions anti-republican ? The Consti- 
titulion of the United States does this. If the 
judiciary can hold office for life, why not the ex- 
ecutive.' and why may not representatives as 
well, if the people see fit to make such a consti- 
tution ? It would not cease to be republican in 
consequence. It might and would be, in my 
judgment, a very bad constitution; but I say that 
of that we cannot rightfully judge. 

I now come to the main question in this debate — 
the alien suffrage clause, as it is called, in this con- 
stitution. I have said that it was no new ques- 
tion. It is a grave and important one, but it is co- 
eval with the Government. Mr. Speaker, if there 
v/asany subject which was seriously watched and 
guarded, in the formation of the Constitution of 
the United States, above all others, it was that the 
Federal Government should not touch the right 
of suffrage in the States. The question of who 
should vote in the several Slates was left for each 
State to settle for itself. And so far as I am con- 
cerned, I say for myself that there is nothing in 
the doctrine of State-rights that I would defend 
and stand by longer, and fight for harder, than 
that which denies the right of the Federal Gov- 
ernment, by its encroachments, to interfere with 
the right of suffrage in my Stale. The ballot-box — 
that is what each State must guard and protect for 
itself; that is what the people of the several States 
never delegated to this Government, and of course 
it was expressly, under theConslitution, reserved 
to the people of the States. Upon the subject of 
alien suffrage, aboutwhich we have heard so much 
lately, I wish in this connection to give a brief his- 
tory. I state to this House that the principle was 
recognized by the ordinance of 1787, which w&h 
before the Government was formed. 

It was recognized by the act of 7th August, 
1789, soon after the Government was formed, one 



of the first acts signed by Washington — an act 
making provisions for carrying out that ordi- 
nance. 

It was recognized in the territory South in the 
cession by Nortii Carolina, on the 2d April, 1790. 

It was again recognized in the bill creating a 
government for the Territory of Tennessee, on 
the 26ih May, 1790. 

It was recognized in the act of settling the limits 
of the State of Georgia, and creating the Missis- 
sippi Territory, on the 7th April, 1798. 

It was recosnized in a supplemental act to the 
last, on the 10th May, 1800. 

It was recognized in the division of Indiana Ter- 
ritory, on the 3d February, 1809. 

It was recognized in an act for Illinois Terri- 
tory, on the 2bth May, 1812. 

It was recognized in the act organizing the 
Michigan territorial governnient: the date of this 
I do not recollect. 

But I cannot take up ray time by referring to 
other instances in their order. I know that in 
• some cases voting in the Territories was restricted 
to citizens. This was the case in the Territories 
of Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, Utah, and New 
Mexico; while alien suliVage was again recog- 
nized, in express terms, in the Territories of Ore- 
gon, Minnesota, Washington, Kansas, and Ne- 
braska. 

Of the Presidents of the United States who, 
in* some form or other, gave the principle their 
sanction either in the Territories or States, may 
be mentioned Washington, the elder Adams, Jef- 
ferson, Madison, Jackson, Polk, Fillmore, and 
Pierce. 

Reference, sir, has been made in this debate to 
a speech made by Mr. Calhoun on this subject, 
in the Senate, in 1836, on the act providing for 
the admission of Michigan, upon which com- 
ments have been made by several gentlemen. The 
views of that distinguished statesman have been 
presented as authority on their side. I have sim- 
ply this to say about that speech: I cannot find 
it in the Globe. I cannot find it in the debates of 
the day. * 

Mr. RICAUD. I think it is in his published 
speeches. 

Mr. STEPHENS, of Georgia. I have seen it 
in his published works, but I cannot find it in the 
published reports of Congress. It is stated to 
have been made in 1836, on the bill authorizing 
Michigan to form a constitution. Michigan wa"s 
admitted with alien suffrage in her constitution, 
on the 3d March, 1837; and Mr. Calhoun does 
not appear to have made any objection to her ad- 
mission on that ground. I find speeches made by 
him upon that bill, but none objecting to this 
clause. I find he offered a substitute for the bill 
admitting Michigan without objection to the alien 
suffrage clause in .her constitution. Still, it is 
stated that this speech of his was made the year 
before, on the Occasion referred to, and I do not 
wish to be understood as questioning it. That 
was on Congress conferring tlie right. He did 
not raise any oJ:)jection to the admission of the 
State as far as I can find, because of alien suffrage 
being allowed in her constitution. 



Again: on the SSth of July, 1848, the Clayton 
compromise bill for the organization of certain 
territorial governments passed tiie Senate. The 
fifth section of the net provides — 

" That every free white male iiihahitant, above tlie age 
of twenty-one years, wlio shall have lieen a resident ol'said 
Territory at the time otlhe passage of tliis act, shiill he en- 
titled to vote at the first election, awd shall be eligible to 
any office in said Territory ; bnt the qualification of voters, 
and of holding office, at all subsequent elections, shall be 
such as shall be prescribed by the Legislative Assembly : 
Proidded, That the right of sutiVagc, and of lioUlinK office, 
shall be exercised only by citizens of the United States, and 
those who shall have declared on oath their intention to ba- 
come sxich, and shall have taken an oath to support the Con- 
stitution of the United States and the provisions of this act." 

On the engrossment of this bill, the \wte was — 

"Yeas — Messrs. Atchison, Atherfon, Benton, Berrien, 
Borland, Breese, Bright, Butler, Calhoun, Clayton, Davis 
of Mississippi, Dickinson, Douglas, Downs, Foote, Hanne- 
iran, Houston, Hunter, Johnson oi' Maryland, Joliiison of 
Louisiana, John.son of Georgia, King, Lewis, Mangum, 
Mason, Phelps, Rusk, Sebastian, Spruance, Sturgeon, Tur- 
ney, Westcott, and Yulee — 33. 

"Nays — Messrs. Allen, Badger, Baldwin, Bell, Brad- 
bury, Clark, Corwin, Davis of Massachuseiis, Dayton, Dix 
Dodge, Felch, Fitzgerald, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Metcalfe, 
Miller, Niles, Underwood, Upliani, and Walker — 22." 

Mr. Calhoun was on the committee which re- 
ported this provision, and he does not appear as 
liaving objected to it. And though he may have 
made that speech in 1836, yet it is equally certain 
and true that twelve years afterwards he voted for 
the very principle he had previously opposed. 
His vote for the principle in 1848, in my opinion, 
is a sufficient answer to his speech against it in 
1836. This is, therefore, Mr. Speaker, no new 
question. 

The same principle, as I have said, was incor- 
porated in the same wordi|| I think, in the bill 
for the organization of Washington Territory in 
1853, and in the Kansas-Nebraslia bill in 18i)4. 

Thegentleman from Tennessee [Mr. Maynard] 
put this question to some gentleman the other day: 
whether, if this bill should pass, Minnesota might 
not confer the right of voting upon an alien ene- 
my? By no means, sir; the person of foreign 
birth, who is entitled to vote under this constitu- 
tion, lias first to purge himself of his allegiance Lo 
other Powers. He must have declared his inten- 
tion to become a citizen of the United Slates, and 
sworn to support the Constitution of the same. 
This is the condition precedent. By no possibil- 
ity, therefore, could an alien enemy legally vote in 
Minnesota. 

Now, Mr. Speaker, the decision of the Supreme 
Court of the United States has been read and com- 
mented on by the gentleman fromMarylantl, [Mr. 
Davis,] who led off in this discussion, and whose 
speech 1 listened to with a great deal of interest — 
an argument as well got up and made on that side 
of the question as J think it possible for ingenuity, 
ability, and talent, united with eloquence, to pre- 
sent. He rested his argument mainly on the decis- 
ion of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case, 
where Judge Taney says that the words " people 
of the United States," in the Constitution, are 
synonymous with "citizens." After reading that 
part of the decision, thegentleman quoted an article 
in the Constitution which says that " the House 



6 



of Representatives shall be composed of members 
chosen every second year by the people of tlie sev- 
eral States;" and his argument was, that as the 
Supreme Court had defined that the word " peo- 
ple" was synonymous, in the Constitution of the 
United States, to " citizens," tlierefore members 
of this House could be elected by none but " citi- 
zens of the United States." Tliat was the gen- 
tleman's argument; but I am far from concurring 
with iiim in it. His argument rests upon the 
assumption that tlu^ Constitution of the United 
States, in the clause quoted, intended to define the 
class of voters in the several States, and to limit 
suffrage. I think that it ^i\\ take me but a mo- 
ment, by Kccuiring to that clause of the Constitu- 
tion and comparing it with others, to show that 
the oliject of that clause was simply to point' out 
the mode of the election of the members of this 
House in contradistinction from the mode of elect- 
ing Senators, and not the class of voters. The 
House was to be elected by the people by a pop- 
ular vote, by the masses; while the Senate was to 
be elected by the State Legislatures. That is all 
that is meant in that clause. The Constitution is 
in these words: 

" The House of Rtpresontatives shall he composed of 
members cho.seii every second j'ear by the people of the 
several Slates," — 

There the gentleman stopped. What follows ? 

— " and the electort in each State shall have the qualifica- 
tions requisite for electors of the niost numerous branch of 
the State Legislature." 

There, coupled with what the gentleman read, 
is tiie rigiit which I say that the people insisted 
upon beyond all others — the reserved right that 
the General Government should never interfere 
with suffrage in the States; not even for mernbers 
of this House. Imi^iediately after the words he 
read, sir, withrfut a semicolon separating them, 
is the express declaration that thfe States shall fix 
the qualification of electors orvoters. Who shall 
say to each State in this particular, thus far mayest 
thou go, and no further? Who shall say to the 
sovereignties where they shall stop? The States, 
over this subjeat, have never parted with any of 
their sovereignty. It is their right, therefore, to 
fix the qnalifii^ations of voters unrestrictedly and 
absolutely. If they say an alien may vote, it is 
their right to do so. 

The other clause of the Constitution to which 
I referred, showing what was meant in the first 
part of the one read by the gentleman, is in these 
words: 

" The Senate of the United States shall be composed of 
two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature 
Uiereof." 

The first clause the gentleman read the other 
day refers simply, as it clearly appears, to the 
manner of the election, the mode of the election, 
the constituency of those elected — to distinguish 
them fnim the constituency of the Senators. The 
one was to be the people, contra-distinguished 
from the Legislatures of the States; this was one 
of the points of difficulty in forming the Federal 
Constitution. It was finally determined that the 
House should represent the people and the Senate 
should represent the States. 



I will refer briefly to the same authority on that 
point. I read from Yates's Minutes of the Debates 
in the Federal convention, the fourth resolve: 

" That the members of the first branch of the national 
Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several 
States was opposed ; and, strange to tell, by Massachusetts 
and Connecticut, who supposed they ought to be ehosc^n by 
the Legislatures; and Virginia supported the resolve, al- 
leging that this ought to be the democratic branch of the 
government, and, as such, immediately vested in the peo- 
ple." 

Again, Mr. Pinckney moved: 

" That the members of the first branch, (that is, this 
House.) be appointed in such manner as the several Staie 
Legislatures shall direct." 

Mr. Madison said: 

" I oppose the motion." 

Mr. Mason said: 

" I am for preserving inviolably the democratic branch ef 
the Government. True, we have found inconveniences 
from pure democracies ; but if we mean to preserve peace 
and real freedom, they must necessarily become a compo- 
nent part of a national Government. Change this neces- 
sary principle, and if the Government proceeds to ta.\ation 
the States will oppose your power." 

The idea that prevailed at the formation of our 
Constitution was, that representation and taxa- 
tion should go together. It was mainly upon that 
ground that the men of that day went to the war 
with the mother country; it was because the col- 
onies were taxed and not allowed representation; 
and if you trace the history of this Government 
down, you will find this great American idea run- 
ning throughout — that taxation and represent- 
ation should go together. Whoever pays taxes 
should vote — that is the idea. 

Great confusion seems to exist in the minds of 
gentlernen from the association of the words citi- 
zen and suffrage. Some seem to think that rights 
of citizenship and rights of suffrage necessarily go 
together; that one is dependent upon the other. 
There never was a greater mistake. Suffrage, oi 
the right to vote, is the creature of law. There art 
citizens in every State of this Union, I doubt not 
who are not entitled to vote. So, in several of th( 
States there are persons who by lav/ are entitlet 
to vote, though they be not citizens. If there b< 
citizens who cannot vote, why may there not b( 
individuals, who are not citizens, who may nev 
ertheless be allowed to vote, if the sovereign wil 
of the State shall so determine ? In all the Statei 
nearly there are other qualifications for voting, evei 
with the native-born, besides citizenship. Resi 
dence for a certain length of time. Virginia, fo 
instance, requires of all citizens of other States 
native-born citizens of Maryland or North Caro 
Una, a certain term of residence. They shall no 
vote in Virginia unless they have been ther 
twelve months. In Alabama, I think, the provis 
ion is the same. 

Why, sir, in my own State, where we hav 
universal suffrage, as it is called, no man can vot 
unless he has paid his taxes, anjj resided in th 
county six months. There are thousands of citi 
zens in Georgia, and I suppose in every othe 
State, who are not entitled to the right of suffrag 
under our Constitution and laws. Citizenshi 
and suffrage by no means go together in all cases 
My time will not allow me^to enlarge on that idea 



I will only refer briefly again to what was said | 
in the Federal convention on the subjec of the 
Slates retaining the control over the subject of 
Bufr.a-e,showin-how vigilantly this was watched 
and guarded by^he State-rights men. Gouycr- 
neur Morris had proposed to restrain the right 
of suffVage to freeholders. This gave rise to a 
long debate. Mr. Ellsworth said: 

"Thp nualification of electors stood on the most proper 
footh,^? ^Tl e ri. U of .ulfrage wius a tender point, and 
sno '"IV- guarded In- n.o.t of ti.e. State constitutions, lie 
p le wlu not readily subscribe ,o the -"t.onal Coi^stUu^ 
tion if it should subject tlicm to be disfranchised. The b ates 
are the best judges of the circumstances and temper of their 
•wu people." 

Again, he says, (I read from the Madison Pa- 
pers:) _ j 

tcniiuht not everv man who pays a tax to vote for thp_ 
Rep°sf a"ive who is to levy 'and dispose of his money.' | 
Taxation and representation ought to go together." , 

I barely refer to this to show that I am sus- 
tained in my view by the highest authority. This 
subject of Ihe quaHfication of electors, and who 1 
should determine it, was mooted at the -^ tlemei t , 
of the Government; and it was left to the fetate , 
Legislatures, under State constitutions. i 

Now, sir, a few moments on the decision of the 
Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Ta- 
ney, in my judgment, fully confirms everything 
I have said. He says: 

"The words 'people of the United States,' and'citi-|j 
zens!' areTvnonymous terms, and mean the same tlmg. : 
™ both describe the political body who, according to onr 
republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and "ho h Id 
the DOwer and conduct the Government throHgh their Uep- ! 
reaeSves They are what are familiarly called the sov- 
erei" , neop e; and every citizen is one of this people, and ; ^ 
a co°n" titu It inember of this sovereignty. The question , ; 
before u "is, whether the class of persons described in the 
Dleai^i abatement [Dred Scott was a negro] compose a por- j . 
- Son of thfpeople, and are constituent meinbers ot this sov. I i 
erei-nty We Uii'nk they are not ; and were not intended , 
W behicluded under the word ' citizens' in the constituuon i 
and can therefore claim none of the rights and privdeges j 
which that instrument provides for, and secures to citizens | 
ol" the United States." | 

■ It was the first words of this clause of the de- 
cision the gentleman from Maryland relied on, but ^ 
he did not pursue the argument far enough. 

The object of the Chief Justice was to show that 
persons of the African race descended from those , 
who were bought and sold as slaves, were not in , 
the original body-politic, and cotild not, by State 
laws, incorporated into that body-politic. But 
now mark what immediately follows that part ot 
his decision: 

" In discu^-^in" this question, we must not confound the 
rights of'cilizenship which a State may confer wniin its 
ovvn limits, and the rights of citizenship as a merabei ot the 
Union." 

Here is the distinction. By naturalization, Con- 
crress can confer citizenship throughout the Union. 
What are the rights created by that? Three in 
all The right to hold land is one; the right to 
sue in the Federal courts is another; and the right 
to claim the protection of this Government, or the 
ricrht of passport abroad, is the other. No State 
call confer these rights throughout the Union ; but 
each State may confer them within her limits. 
Each State may confer upon an alien the right to 



hold lands. No man can question that; but if 
Indiana or Georgia confers this right upoti an 
alien, he cannot go into South Carolina and hoM 
land there by virtue of that. If he were naturalized 
he could. So each State may give the right to an 
alien to sue in its own courts; but, therefore, he 
does not acquire a right to sue in any other State 
court or the Federal courts. Each State may 
o-uaranty her protection within her limits, but not 
i throughout the Union. She cannot pledge the 
1 protection of the common Government. 
I But the court goes right on with this language: 
" It does not bv anv means follow, because he has the 
I rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be 
• a citizen ot" the United States. He may have all the rights 
and privileges of a citizen of a State, raid yet not he emitled 
. to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State ; 
I for previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the Uni- 
i ed States, every State had the undoubted right to cotifer 
' on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to 
endow him with all its rights ; but this character of course, 
was confined to the boundaries of the Stale and gave him 
no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured 
' to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. 
I '■ Nor have the several States surrendered the power of con- 
' ferrin- these rights and privileges by adopting the Cons itu- 
I ; tion of the UnitTnl Slates. Each State may sull conferthem 
i upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any cla^ 
I or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen m 
1 ' Ue sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of 
;'' the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its 
! ' courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen m 
' the other States. The rights which he would acquire would 
j I be restricted to the State which gave them." 

I ask, then, if the constitution of Minnesota, 
according to this Dred Scott decision, has an iota, 
or a sino-te clause in it, so far as alien suftVage is 
concerned, which Chief Justice Taney has not 
said she has a right under the Constitution of the 
United States to put in it.- This is a right none 
of the State.'i have ever surrendered. Every State 
in this Union has the right of fixing the status of 
all its constituent elements absolutely, as each 
State may determine for itself, and also the right 
of determining who may and who may not vote 
' at elections for public officers under her authority. 
What part of the constitution of Minnesota, then, 
is in violation of the Constitution of the United 
States.' Why, then, should she not be admitted.' 
Let me say, in conclusion, that the constitution 
of Illinois has such a clause. Is not she an e^ual 
in this Union .? Why not rule her out.' Indiana 
has such a clause. Why not ruleherout.' Mich- 
igan has such a clause. Why not rule her out? 
Wisconsin has such a clause. I havp tlip :'""_^1 
here. When Wisconsin was admitted, in lb4s, 
Mr. Calhoun was in his seat and he did not even 
call the yeas and nays on it. And yet we are told 
i' that this is a great and a dangerous example we 
are setting, if we admit Minnesota on an equal 
■ footino- with Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wis- 
: consitf.and all of the States. Deprive her of this 
' o-reat ri"-ht, would she be their equal ? Are Illinois 
!,and South Carolina now equal? Are Indiana 
j: and Massachusetts now equal ? Why, then, if 
you deny Minnesota the power that Illinois and 
! Indiana have, will she be equal to them? Things 
I' equal to one another are equal to each other, if 
!, those in the Union now are equal, will not Min- 
! nesota be unequal if you deprive her of this right? 
If you put upon her a condition you have never 



8 



put upon these others, will not you make her 
unequal? and if you bring her in, would she be 
upon an equal footing with her sister States ? If 
she confers suflVage upon those born abroad, who 
purge themselves of their foreign allegiance and 
ffwear to support the Constitution of the United 
btates, she has the right to do so. Any State in 
Uie Union now has the same ri^ht, if any see fit 
to exercise it. The several Stales cannot confer 
eitizenship of the United States upon any body or 
elass of persons; but every State, in hersoverei-n 
capacity has a right to say who shall vote at ele^'c- 
tions in that State. Let us, then, drop this objec- 
tion; let us admit Minnesota, and let her come in 



clothed with all the sovereignty that the other 
states possess. My time is out. 
One word about the amendment I have offered. 
1 1 thought that by this time Minnesota would be 
entu ed to three members. The enabling act enti- 
tled her to one, with additional Representatives, 
according to her population under the last appor- 
Uoiiment. 1 he information I have received since 
1 ottered my amendment has led me to believe 
that her population at this time would not entitle 
her to three members, but will to two; and there- 
tore 1 withdraw my amendment, and hope the 
House wi pass the bill as it came from the Sen. 
ate^^j^il tor the previous question. 



RD - 2.3 






■■}} 




^^-^^^ 











■a? -^ 




.0 







'^-o* 












^ov*. 



'^^ 






^°-;^ 






^^ 



.'^ 



o V 









'> 



V, "^ *V^ *^^ »-"• aO <^ 

-• -.. .^ .•^, *.^^/ ,.^.._ -^^^«* 



^^ 













i<? "a • - . «. 



.0' 












A 



\> ^ » • • '^ O fi^ 






